Prop 8 has been struck down. I will blog more about this later; ’til then, revel in this:
“Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy — namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.”
Love WINS.
SouthernFemaleLawyer 
chenoa said,
August 4, 2010 at 5:51 pm
TAKE THAT, BITCHES!
ahem.
mike w. said,
August 13, 2010 at 7:55 am
Good! A win for individual liberty!
Lincoln said,
August 15, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Please let them appeal. I live in the 9th Circuit. *rubs hands and laughs evily* COme on up and see us!!
JJ said,
August 16, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Legal question: here in Florida we have a judicial review process for ballot initiatives, to be sure they pass muster before being put on the ballot.
Does CA have a similar process and if so, does it include constitutional review, and was constitutionality (basic civil rights) considered before the vote ever happened? If not, shouldn’t it surely be in future?
Or maybe my state just reviews for silly things like how understandable the language is and whether it deals with more than one subject at a time? I really don’t know and I’m likely better informed than nine of ten voters, sigh . . .
Gary Baker said,
April 20, 2011 at 10:28 pm
A loss for rule of law. The court has now essentially set itself up as “kings,” essentially nullifying the people’s ability to set law by ballot initiative. And the use of the term “right” is an abuse of the term, as there has never been a “right” to marriage. If you don’t believe that, talk to anyone who has ever tried to marry a foriegn national.